eh, what's the difference between meaning and transfer of thought? Don't you see you're still begging the question? :) You've defined all legitimate interpretation --ahead of time--as those interpretations which are coextensive with the author's intended meaning. No more, no less, that's it. The fact that you're arguing from that point of view doesn't mean you're sustaining or legitimizing that point of view. Now I want to make some qualifications. I think the author's intended meaning is usually at least one legitimate reading of a piece. Sometimes, when the author is a very poor author, it's not a legitimate reading of a piece. We need to take into account stupid writers just as we do stupid readers. And I think some pieces are open to wider interpretations than others. Eliot's Waste Land is open, I think, to a fairly wide range of meaning, while I think the post below is open to probably just one valid reading. Probably. I say "probably" because Mr. Limerock will very creatively and intelligently shoot me out of the water if I say, "definitely." :) But I think the range of possible meanings for Scottie's post below is pretty narrow, especially if we read it within the context of our listserve. And I think all readings of the post below need to stay pretty close to Scottie's probable intent. I say this because of the type of prose employed, my faith in Scottie as a writer, and the subject matter of the post. Jim On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:24:36 +0000 Scottie Bowman <rbowman@indigo.ie> writes: > The more a reader recognises some personal meaning > in a piece of writing the less audible becomes the voice > of the artist. > > One can, of course, go on talking about MEANING. > But no significant transfer of thought is taking place. > > Scottie B. > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]